|
Poster:
|
gzd |
Date:
|
August 06, 2010 04:03:14pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Las Vegas shakedown |
For what it's worth, there is a renewal record for this one:
Type of Work: Motion Picture
Registration Number / Date: RE0000165279 / 1983-01-14
Renewal registration for: LP0000004786 / 1955-05-15
Title: LasVegas shakedown. By Allied Artists Pictures Corporation.
Copyright Claimant: Telewide Systems, Inc. (PWH)
Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence.
Variant title: LasVegas shakedown.
Names: Allied Artists Pictures Corporation
Telewide Systems, Inc.
There's no space between 'Las' and 'Vegas' in the spelling used for the renewal record, so I don't know if this difference has a bearing on the validity of the renewal, but I thought I'd bring it up anyway.
|
Poster:
|
gzd |
Date:
|
August 07, 2010 03:30:55am |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: Las Vegas shakedown |
I'll tell you how I found the record. Maybe this information can be helpful.
If you go to the USCO search page and search for "Las Vegas showdown", three results appear, all of them mass listings. You'll notice (see titlesearchresults.JPG) the last two have a renewal number quoted next to the title: RE 165-279.
Now if you use this renewal number and do a new search for RE0000165279 (the number needs to be padded with zeros to reach ten digits) by registration number instead of by title (see registrationsearch.JPG), you will be led straight to the renewal record.
Some registration numbers found through this iterative method can point to cancelled registrations (such as RE0000163412 for The Big Combo, for which the renewal attempt came a year too late) while others point to valid ones. There's the usual caveat though: the search by registration number only produces valid results for works renewed in or after 1978. Based on my own experience, renewal numbers seem to have been reset in 1978 and using pre-1978 renewal numbers in the search can lead to either nothing or completely different works.
I was able to find a few "invisible" renewals using this method, such as:
-the Las Vegas Story (1952): renewed as "the LasVegas Story"
-Shield for Murder (1954): renewed as "Shield"
Of course there's still the issue of the validity of renewals made under slightly different names, but it's hard to know whether the discrepancies are due to filing errors by the applicants or to the process used to digitize records. My rule of thumb is that if the usual suspects (Alpha Video, Mill Creek Entertainment and so on) haven't put it out for sale, the renewal probably stands.
This post was modified by gzd on 2010-08-07 10:30:55
Attachment: registrationsearch.JPGAttachment: titlesearchresults.JPG
|
Poster:
|
Moongleam |
Date:
|
August 07, 2010 05:05:54pm |
|
Forum:
|
feature_films
|
Subject:
|
Re: Las Vegas shakedown |
Thanks. Good information.
However, remember that Alpha Video and Mill Creek don't have every old movie that's PD; for example, the Falcon movie "Devil's Cargo" that was uploaded here recently.
TVNews
OpenLibrary
